This fragment is actually quite a bit larger than what is
pictured here and unfortunately the larger image showing the entire fragment
was accidentally lost in virtual space just before completion of the posting
of this exhibition. There are several noteworthy features that deserve discussion
and while this image does not allow them to be fully illustrated, it does
present enough of the original to continue.

Archaic period Tekke weaving, like that of all other Turkmen
groups is extremely rare, and this is the only example of a chuval to be yet
published. Compared to the Tekke engsi, Plate Three, the wool quality, coloration
and drawing of this chuval are demonstrably different. Both of these weavings
were produced in the same general area of western Turkmenistan, the chuval
in the Kopet Dag Mountain region and Plate Three from somewhat farther south
in the vicinity of Merv. These differences were the result of disparate cultural
and not so much geographic environments. The chuval was produced by a nomadic
group living an archaic lifestyle in the foothills and mountain valleys of
the Kopet Dag and the ensi within a settled village setting. The chuval has
the surface patina, coloration and expressive drawing style that, it seems,
were only produced by weavers during the archaic period. Perhaps a Tekke engsi
with these characteristics will soon be located.

The complete fragment has three rows of six main göls
and the same
set of borders at the top. It is surprising to find this combination of borders
on an archaic weaving as it is more commonly seen on later examples. However,
a higher level of articulation has added, a minor border of tiny multi-colored
crosses and a subtly more complex
main border design (fig.40). It is very similar
to a göl, called aina, found on many classic and later period weavings.
Compare it with those on a small Tekke bag(fig.41),
known to the Turkmen as mafrash.
Also note the more common version of the same main border. Are the designs(fig.42)
in the added side panels on this mafrash a vestige of the main gopaz border
from the Tekke engsi?

Between each of this fragment’s main göls are unusual chemche
minor göls. For not only are they extremely large, in fact they are as large
as the major göls, but each horizontal row is quite different from the next.
When the entire fragment is seen, these chemche create an extraordinary scene
no other chuval or for that matter Turkmen weaving duplicates. This rather
erratic drawing style is very unconventional and although it might seem uncharacteristic
in an archaic period weaving, it is actually attractive and conveys a unique
sense of movement and rhythm.

The grid of intersecting horizontal and vertical blue lines
is a feature of almost all Tekke main carpets, but extremely rare on trappings.
This raises an interesting question since this after all is a fragment missing
an unknown amount of field on both sides as well as both side borders and
all four edge finishes. Is this a chuval fragment or is it a fragment of a
small rug? Since there are no other Tekke chuvals or small rugs known from
the archaic period to compare it to, there is no possible answer to this corundum.
But the fragment’s size and the presence of main and secondary borders usually
associated with chuvals and not main carpets would make it appear that it
was not a small rug.

Like many other questions raised by Turkmen weavings, the
answers for now remain elusive and as this subject receives increased attention
so too are more questions raised. Finding these answers is truly a fascinating
pursuit as it combines history, geography, archaeology, economics, politics,
linguistics and soon, state of the art scientific research. But in the end
it stimulates a search for the most wonderful of all – man’s desire to explain
the unexplainable through art.